Why is it that a possible Gospel dependency order of Mark-Luke-Matthew without requiring 'Q' is considered particularly unlikely, when compared to other possible solutions to the synoptic problem? Do ...

While I buy the evidence for Q based on parallels in Matthew and Luke that don't use Mark as a source, I find it curious that Q is often thought to be earlier than Mark. Is there evidence for this? ...

There is a noteworthy scholarly position that Matthew was the first Gospel written. As such, it may have even been the first New Testament book written. If this is correct, it is likely that Matthew ...

The general scholarly consensus is that the gospels of Matthew and Luke used the gospel of Mark as one of their sources. But Matthew and Luke also share content that is not in Mark, so it's believed ...

In Genesis 4:25; 6:3,6-8, 9-22; 7:1, 9, 16a/b; 8:1-19, 20-22, we see the author using two designations for God, “Yahweh”, and “Elohim”. What is the significance, if any, of the author bouncing back ...

1Ki 12:1 And Rehoboam went to Shechem, for all Israel had gone to Shechem to make him king.
2 Chr 10:1 And Rehoboam went to Shechem, for all Israel had gone to Shechem to make him king.
1Ki 12:2 So ...

I know the Jesus Seminar held that Q and the Gospel of Thomas were prior in composition to the writing of the Synoptics. Is this still a dominant view among scholars (as far as Thomas)? What can be ...

Lest anyone think this is a "stump the chumps" question, I am specifically interested in support for a particular reading of this text. It is disputed which manuscript should be followed in Jude 5. ...

It seems pretty standard for commentaries to be written on the combination of 2 Peter and Jude. Obviously they both share the subject matter of false teachers, but I assume there are reasons beyond ...

Modern consensus is that the books of Ezra and Nehemiah actually comprise a single work which was subsequently divided into two. How is it that scholars realized this was the same book (Does it have ...